Can Ron Paul win?

posted at 11:40 am on December 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

With Ron Paul rising in the polls, the media has begun to cast its attention towards the libertarian GOP Congressman. With Paul rising in the polls, people have begun to ask whether he can win in Iowa and perhaps even New Hampshire. The Washington Post published a mainly positive profile of Paul in today’s paper, calling him “a force to be reckoned with in this presidential cycle,” which is certainly and objectively true. However, it concludes with “There is no Ron Paul 2.0,” which is certainly not true, and until now has hardly been mentioned in this primary campaign — perhaps because until now, no one thought that Paul could win anything.

In the last campaign, a number of publications went through Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s, an enterprise that provided Paul with a steady income and a base of support that extended beyond his Congressional district. In May 2007, the Houston Chronicle published some explosive excerpts of these newsletters, which both Curt at Flopping Aces and I linked. The Chronicle’s link is dead, but my post at CapQ are still accessible. From May 22, 2007:

======

Eleven years ago, the Houston Chronicle reported that Ron Paul’s newsletter highlighted what he saw as a criminal community (emphases mine):

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Not enough yet? How about Paul’s suggestion that the age of adulthood for criminal prosecution be lowered — for blacks?

He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

This still may not convince liberals that Paul is nuttier than Aunt Mabel’s pecan pie, but this next part will be guaranteed to end the Paul boomlet on the Left:

Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation “would explain certain mysteries” about the president’s scratchy voice and insomnia.

How did Ron Paul explain these writings? He claims that he didn’t write them himself, but his staffers did — and it was “too confusing” to explain afterwards:

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”

Um, yeah. A politician sends out a newsletter filled with these kinds of paranoid rants, and then claims it would be “too confusing” to fire the people who supposedly wrote it in his name and explain that he didn’t really believe in any of it. There’s some real truth-telling for you!

======

A few months later, in January 2008 after the Iowa caucuses, Reason Magazine — a publication that has hardly been unfriendly to Paul — took a close look at the issue, and didn’t like what they found. Matt Welch wrote at that time that Paul never really expressed much regret over the content of his newsletters:

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and “taken moral responsibility” for, these “Ron Paul” newsletters “for over a decade”? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.

The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article — less than eight years ago. …

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken “out of context” and proof of his opponent’s “race-baiting,” Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

Welch then provided a raft of examples supporting this conclusion, which I would recommend reading. At the time of my post, Paul had just denied writing his own newsletters, but that contradicted a quote found by the Dallas Morning News in the campaign against Lefty Morris, printed May 22, 1996, found by Welch and included in his post:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Let’s put aside for the moment Paul’s continued association with conspiracy nut Alex Jones and the 9/11 Truthers, and his fringe views on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran. What do Republicans who are considering Paul as the nominee think will happen if he wins a spot on the Republican ticket? The Obama campaign will have a field day running these in advertisements and painting their opposition as entirely consisting of old racists, even if Paul starts issuing vague regrets for his newsletters and instructs people to read them in full context. The last two weeks have seen Republicans debate what Mitt Romney was thinking when he said he had “progressive views” in 2002 or when Gingrich was lauding FDR as one of the greatest presidents of all time even longer ago than that. Aren’t these statements a few orders of magnitude more disturbing?

I have no idea why the Washington Post or other media aren’t reporting on this aspect of Paul’s past. The Post article never even mentions the word “newsletter.” Perhaps they see it as such old news that it couldn’t possibly come up in the context of an election. Perhaps the media figures they’ll just get to it in the general election. Regardless, it’s time we start pointing out Paul’s record and embarrassing newsletters before enough Republicans take him seriously as a mainstream candidate to do real damage to our ability to win in November.

Update: Just when I thought everyone else had amnesia about Paul and the newsletters, Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast also chose today to remind readers about it:

I wonder what these young and gender-transcendent and differently melanined people would make, for example, of the racism charges. There is debate on this point, but back during the 2008 campaign, The New Republic’s James Kirchick tracked down old copies (late 1980s and early 1990s) of a newsletter that went out to subscribers under Paul’s name. The sentences that appear in these documents are so astonishing that they’d have stood out in Alabama in 1960. Martin Luther King was a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” (who were, interestingly, of both sexes). The name of New York City should be changed to “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” or “Lazyopolis.” David Duke’s near-win in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary was celebrated. Mountains of material about welfare cheats and animals and arming oneself for the coming race riot and so on.

Update II: We’re already starting to see the “Paul didn’t write his own newsletter” response in the comments. As Matt Welch notes, he actually acknowledged writing them in 1996, before they became a big liability, but even if he didn’t write them himself, he published them under his own byline, and made a profit on them. As for them being 20 years old, well, you judge whether people will dismiss them as old news when Team Obama starts rolling out a Ron Paul Quote of the Day from the convention to the election.

Update III: Jeff Dunetz wrote about this a month ago, and he has a lot more than I have in this post, all of it bad (including screen shots of the newsletters themselves). At the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord also discusses this, and mentions that he and Sean Hannity discussed it yesterday on Hannity’s radio show:

While I think the lack of attention has been due to the fact that many did not take him seriously, a justifiable complaint from his supporters, I have tried to do just that in this space. And in doing so launched a fusillade of angry response from Paul supporters that, peculiarly, never seems forthcoming when I criticize Gingrich/Romney/Perry/Huntsman etc etc.

But as we head into this last debate of the season, Hannity has raised an excellent point. The higher Ron Paul goes, as with his fellow candidates who have floated to the top previously, the scrutiny will intensify. And Ron Paul will have to seriously answer.

Or he can just respond with the “ohmygosh these are old news that Paul didn’t write himself and even if he did he doesn’t believe them even if they are totally true” defense we’re seeing in the comments from Paul’s defenders.

Update IV: Ace has a lengthy post on this subject that should be read in full, but this part should be especially noted:

Ron Paul claims he didn’t write this stuff, which I can believe, mostly.

But he also claims he wasn’t aware what the newsletters published in his name, supposedly written by him, were saying.

There are a lot of people who find it implausible that Barack Hussein Obama didn’t know the basic tenor of the Reverent Wright’s sermons of hatred. It is unlikely in the extreme, they reason, that Obama could have missed each one of Wright’s hateful, anti-semitic seethings — these statements were too pervasive to believe he just happened to miss every single one of them.

Well, the old-line racist/neoconfederate ravings in Paul’s newsletters (for which he was paid; people paid for this, and he profited) were more pervasive.

Furthermore, these missives were written with a specific goal in mind: creating a “paleoconservative alliance” between libertarians and old-time neoconfederates and former Klanners.

Does Doctor Paul seriously expect us to believe he wasn’t even aware of the basic ideological line his newsletters were peddling? He claims he didn’t even have that minimum level of editorial knowledge?

A line here or a line there, I could understand. But we are talking here about the basic thrust of his newsletters, which were paranoid, survivalist, racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic. All that’s missing is some anti-Catholic agitation and he’s got the full Klanner set covered.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Another thing, too, while I’m at it: whenever you whack job tinfoil hat-wearing dirtbags show up on a conservative forum or gathering, online or real-life, expect derision, ridicule, and contempt, at least from me and hopefully other Republicans like me. Ron Paul is tolerated by the Republican establishment and mainstream primary candidates because they’re afraid Ron Paul will pull a Ross Perot and create a third-party split during a close general election. Me, I don’t care. I’d rather the GOP lose the general election than ever be identified with the likes of you. You’re even worse than the Birchers, if such a thing is possible. You’re racists. You’re un-American. You’re a disgrace and so is your leader.

troyriser_gopftw on December 15, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Really, tough guy? Internet warrior? Expect the same in return, Progressive scum. You know nothing about me or many of the other RP supporters on here and yet you throw out terms like “racist, and un-American”. I served under your idol GW for for his entire term in office. I deployed where they told me and did my job. I also possess a US birth certificate. So, don’t go spouting off about things you know nothing about, chickensh*t.

However, Paul should not be the next President. The above article just shows why he would not win (I like someone who speaks his mind, but I’m sorry to say it ruined his chances), but frankly, I would not want him to be commander in chief.

Considering the election will turn with the vote of Independents you might want to research which candidate wins the most polls when matched up against the Prez.

Paul’s problem isn’t normal folk. His problem is the ultra-nationalistic, warmongering base of the Republican party.

bmowell on December 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I have, Bmonwell. None of them with any credibility leads me to believe that Ron Paul is only 4th and Inches from being President.

Even if such polls put him ahead of everyone, and TIME magazine AND National Review made him the Second Coming of Ronald Reagen he STILL wouldn’t have a snowballs chance of being President. The support is NOT there.

I live in an urban area. The Northeast to be exact, and there is little talk of consideration for RP. Frankly, if the Dems want to punish Obama for not being liberal enough, they would show their displeasure voting for Romney way before they’d throw the towel in to Ron Paul.

Look at the Heartland…Look at the South. Where is Paul’s base going to come from? Its not there, not in numbers that will allow him to be nothing more than a ‘Boutique’ candidate. Hell, in some ways, I think that’s what BHO was shooting to be instead of actually winning the damn White House, but there you go.

Again, I am not touching the issue with 9/11 or the Newsletters…I can be clinical enough to subtract them from the equation. Whats left is more than enough.

Considering the election will turn with the vote of Independents you might want to research which candidate wins the most polls when matched up against the Prez.

Paul’s problem isn’t normal folk. His problem is the ultra-nationalistic, warmongering base of the Republican party.

bmowell on December 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM

I have, Bmonwell. None of them with any credibility leads me to believe that Ron Paul is only 4th and Inches from being President.

Even if such polls put him ahead of everyone, and TIME magazine AND National Review made him the Second Coming of Ronald Reagen he STILL wouldn’t have a snowballs chance of being President. The support is NOT there.

I live in an urban area. The Northeast to be exact, and there is little talk of consideration for RP. Frankly, if the Dems want to punish Obama for not being liberal enough, they would show their displeasure voting for Romney way before they’d throw the towel in to Ron Paul.

Look at the Heartland…Look at the South. Where is Paul’s base going to come from? Its not there, not in numbers that will allow him to be nothing more than a ‘Boutique’ candidate. Hell, in some ways, I think that’s what BHO was shooting to be instead of actually winning the damn White House, but there you go.

Again, I am not touching the issue with 9/11 or the Newsletters…I can be clinical enough to subtract them from the equation. Whats left is more than enough.
BlaxPac on December 15, 2011 at 10:08 PM

The time for political expediency is over. Our nation can no longer afford that, BlaxPac. It’s time we start electing people who will honor and abide by the Constitution. He’s the only top-tier candidate who will do so. Will he win? Probably not. But, he should win. And the attraction to his ideas is spreading. It will probably manifest itself with another candidate. But, it will eventually manifest itself.

If the nomination goes all the way to the convention and Paul wins, do you think that the base will hop on board? Or do you think that they would rather have the President win again?

bmowell on December 15, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Read through the posts. Many of them say they’d vote for Obama. Is that disturbing or what? Generally, they seem to like Pauls domestic views but feel that the day he came into office armageddon would take place, the Iranians would nuke us, Taiwan would be invaded, Israel would crumble, and an Asteroid would destroy Earth. Oh, and we’re racists and un-American to boot.

The time for political expediency is over. Our nation can no longer afford that, BlaxPac. It’s time we start electing people who will honor and abide by the Constitution. He’s the only top-tier candidate who will do so. Will he win? Probably not. But, he should win. And the attraction to his ideas is spreading. It will probably manifest itself with another candidate. But, it will eventually manifest itself.

RobbBond on December 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Good comment. This isn’t a sprint, though. It’s a marathon. Get to work with the meetup group in your county. :-)

Read through the posts. Many of them say they’d vote for Obama. Is that disturbing or what? Generally, they seem to like Pauls domestic views but feel that the day he came into office armageddon would take place, the Iranians would nuke us, Taiwan would be invaded, Israel would crumble, and an Asteroid would destroy Earth. Oh, and we’re racists and un-American to boot.

RobbBond on December 15, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Let them. If Paul isn’t nominated the things that are important to us have no chance of changing anyway regardless of which statist is elected.

Many of them say they’d vote for Obama. [emphasis mine] Is that disturbing or what? Generally, they seem to like Pauls domestic views but feel that the day he came into office armageddon would take place, the Iranians would nuke us, Taiwan would be invaded, Israel would crumble, and an Asteroid would destroy Earth. Oh, and we’re racists and un-American to boot.

RobbBond on December 15, 2011 at 10:17 PM

I’ve read most of the posts in this thread. ‘Many of them say they’d vote for Obama’ is not a true statement. It is true, based on remarks made here and on other conservative sites, that many Republicans would choose not to vote at all, to sit it out. Personally, I would never vote for a man advocating the policies and holding the beliefs Paul does.

I’ve read most of the posts in this thread. ‘Many of them say they’d vote for Obama’ is not a true statement. It is true, based on remarks made here and on other conservative sites, that many Republicans would choose not to vote at all, to sit it out. Personally, I would never vote for a man advocating the policies and holding the beliefs Paul does.

But it won’t come to that.

troyriser_gopftw on December 15, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Cool. I would never vote for a man advocating the policies and holding the beliefs that Newt Romney does.

He advocates limited government, fiscal discipline, domestic priorities, and adherence to the Constitution, and his record is testament to it.

You wouldn’t vote for someone like that???

Dante on December 15, 2011 at 10:36 PM

He also advocates white supremacy (remember his photo op with Stormfront (a neo-Nazi white supremacist group) founder Don Black), took money from Don Black which he refused to return, he never disavowed Stormfront backing him, he’s anti-Israel, an anti-Semite, takes Iran’s side, hangs with Truthers, blames America for 9/11, etc and so on. He’s a loon, and would take the GOP down for decades if nominated.

Let me make it clearer, RobbBond: you lied when you claimed ‘many [Republicans] say they’d vote for Obama…’

You lied. You were engaging in needless hyperbole. You were attempting to buttress an argument by making a spurious claim.

You and your like-minded pals have been hanging out together too much, an echo chamber resonating with conspiracies and secret histories. When confronted by those who don’t share your views, you and yours get defensive with a quickness. You start making stuff up. You employ strawmen and other logical fallacies. You refuse to engage in an argument on its merits and instead resort to ad hominem attacks.

Further, as a group, you and yours ‘stuff ballots’ in both online and real world polls in order to load the outcome in such a way that appears as if your guy has more support than he actually does–a dishonest practice for which you never own up or apologize. You gravitate to Ron Paul threads like this one in hopes of making it a long advertisement extolling Dear Leader’s virtues and promoting his views–and you do it in an organized way, not out of any spontaneous individual action.

You and yours want respect? Earn it by behaving honestly, with a modicum of consideration for the opinions of others.

He also advocates white supremacy (remember his photo op with Stormfront (a neo-Nazi white supremacist group) founder Don Black), took money from Don Black which he refused to return, he never disavowed Stormfront backing him, he’s anti-Israel, an anti-Semite, takes Iran’s side, hangs with Truthers, blames America for 9/11, etc and so on. He’s a loon, and would take the GOP down for decades if nominated.

William Teach on December 15, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Wow. You fit almost every single lie and smear into one condensed post. He is not anti-Israel, he is not an anti-Semite, he does not take Iran’s side, nor does he blame America for 9/11.

Let me make it clearer, RobbBond: you lied when you claimed ‘many [Republicans] say they’d vote for Obama…’

You lied. You were engaging in needless hyperbole. You were attempting to buttress an argument by making a spurious claim.

You and your like-minded pals have been hanging out together too much, an echo chamber resonating with conspiracies and secret histories. When confronted by those who don’t share your views, you and yours get defensive with a quickness. You start making stuff up. You employ strawmen and other logical fallacies. You refuse to engage in an argument on its merits and instead resort to ad hominem attacks.

Further, as a group, you and yours ‘stuff ballots’ in both online and real world polls in order to load the outcome in such a way that appears as if your guy has more support than he actually does–a dishonest practice for which you never own up or apologize. You gravitate to Ron Paul threads like this one in hopes of making it a long advertisement extolling Dear Leader’s virtues and promoting his views–and you do it in an organized way, not out of any spontaneous individual action.

You and yours want respect? Earn it by behaving honestly, with a modicum of consideration for the opinions of others.

troyriser_gopftw on December 15, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Now, let me be clearer to you, Troy. Go back and look through the comments yourself. There are at least three people who said they’d vote for Obama. Instead of “many”, I should have said “some”. To everyone but you I apologize.

I don’t engage in conspiracy theories or secret histories, so you just lied. When confronted by our viewpoints, you and many of your ilk flip out and call us “crazy”, “tinfoil hat-types”. Unlike us, you consistently employ strawmen (the whole 9-11 truther thing being one of them).

I’ve never stuffed a ballot in my life. I hang out with several RP supporters (all military by the way) and none of them have ever stuffed a ballot.

In terms of these threads, I’ve never organized anything. I don’t even know anybody else on this site. So, that’s a lie too.

Do I want respect? Certainly not from you. You’ve proven yourself to be a vile, contemptible human-being. When confronted with someone with an opposing viewpoint, you referred to me as “racist” and “un-American”. You are the epitome of all the negative remarks you just made of me. In short, you’re a disgraceful human being and I don’t want your respect because I would never have respect for a person like you. To sum it all up: GFY.

video: Ron Paul meets with 9/11 truthers where he states that he thinks 9/11 was an inside job that needs to be “investigated”, he would lead this investigation with Dennis Kucinich, he also thinks JFK was killed by the US govt:

Perry’s “Strong” ad helped put the last few nails in his campaign’s coffin.
McSmack on December 15, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So Perry can point out, accurately, that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, which is a fact, and that is a nail in his coffin, but Paul can endorse the idea that 13 year old black children should be tried as adults and that isn’t?

The neocons are starting to get worried you can tell. And like the progressives they are, they’re playing the race card. You can’t criticize his record so you’re bringing up some 30 year old newsletter that was written by some random nut job.

steve123 on December 15, 2011 at 12:24 PM

He put his name to it. It was his newsletter. He made money off of it.

Heck, I volunteered as an assistant coach for a girls junior high basketball team one time and the head coach was “all offense all the time.” I couldn’t put my name to it because, well, that’s not basketball. I quit. I respect myself enough to not support things I don’t believe in. Apparently, Ron Paul does not.

First, Dr. Paul is a persistent “whiner.” While that may sound harsh to RP supporters, it is a legitimate observation. He spends a great deal of time “whining” about things. Whiners do not make leaders, and Ron Paul would not be able to “lead” Republicans in the House with his agenda. He lacks the “persuasive” skills a leader needs, in order to lead. Diatribes and whining do not bring about change.

I agree with this. He does not have leadership and has never had executive experience. Has he even sponsored any legislation in his 22 year career that was made into law?

golembythehudson, are you suggesting Ron Paul does not hold mainstream views?

You can add me to the list of people who would vote for Obama instead of Paul. You can also add Ace, who sums up why better than me:

Under no circumstances whatsoever will I vote for this reactionary, anti-semitic peacenik “We brought 9/11 ourselves” pacifist Chomnskyite crank.

And I’ll say it: I will, yes, be amenable to Barack Obama being re-elected under those circumstances. As members of the Purity Brigade used to tell me– Sometimes you win by losing.

I would decide at that point to use my own “Sometimes we win by losing” chits at that point. As was said of Mike Castle — it’s better that we lose, because at least the guy in office won’t be one of our own, making those bad decisions.

If the nomination goes all the way to the convention and Paul wins, do you think that the base will hop on board? Or do you think that they would rather have the President win again?

bmowell on December 15, 2011 at 10:11 PM

The nomination WILL go all the way to the floor..I think that’s a given considering the time frame and the amount of money that’s going to be involved in this race. But Paul doesn’t have is the money OR the infrastructure to make it that far….Not unless the so called “1%” are putting all their nickles on his horse in this race and I think that’s its a safe bet they are NOT.

But I will give away points here: Lets say for whatever reason, RP wins the nomination (probably by less than 35% but thats my 2 cents), the primary season is in full swing…and its Rep. Paul & President Obama.

Now, since you and other fellow Paulians have that data ready at their fingertips, please tell me, in WHAT part of the country is solidly “Wall to Wall Ron Paul Country?”, to paraphrase the Great Bob Grant.

Outside of the district where he’s served for what? Over 20 years? In the SAME state that he’s never seem to rise to a position higher than Representative? Not even as a Senior Senator from that same state? If he can’t accomplish that, how in the name of Bob Marley is he going to convince even another 20% of the general voting public to vote for him?

The base will not turn out for him, and if he won the nomination, there is no groundswell of support for him still…even in the face of a second Obama term. The base would be more inclined to lose the WH and try to regain control of Congress, because THAT’S where the real battles are going to occur.

The time for political expediency is over. Our nation can no longer afford that, BlaxPac. It’s time we start electing people who will honor and abide by the Constitution. He’s the only top-tier candidate who will do so. Will he win? Probably not. But, he should win. And the attraction to his ideas is spreading. It will probably manifest itself with another candidate. But, it will eventually manifest itself.

RobbBond on December 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Its not a matter of expediency if you concentrate on the core values that separate us from the DNC. RP talks the game but its not enough to just TALK Libertarian anymore than it is okay to just TALK Conservatism al la Newt. BUT – i would vote for Newt over Ron just because Newts foreign policy isn’t academic to him as it would be to Ron Paul. Frankly I would say that about pretty much all the candidates save Huntsman, and that’s a whole separate issue in of itself.

Again, to call RP a “Top Tier” candidate is stretching the meaning of the word paper thin. Where he POLLS at is a lot different than from the historical data from his past attempts.

You can add me to the list of people who would vote for Obama instead of Paul. You can also add Ace, who sums up why better than me:

Logboy on December 15, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Wow. Thanks for that link. If I ever was going to entertain the thought of reading that website and that Ace guy, you just saved me the trouble. I am totally shocked that a guy who was for TARP and who forgives Gingrich for Fannie/Freddie and Medicare would be opposed to Ron Paul.

As for not holding mainstream views, you think that’s a bad thing? Are you equating popularity with right?

Michele Bachmann. She has the best record of any conservative in the race. She led 40,000 patriots to DC to protest Obamacare while Newt Romney was supporting mandates. MB voted no on TARP and fought with the RINO GOP leadership over the $108B in funding in Obamacare that was in the continuing resolutions from last spring. MB fought for a bill for the incandescent light bulb and voted not on the debt ceiling (while other Tea Party favorites like Allen West voted for it).

Michele Bachmann has never been an executive. Why do we think someone can jump from the House to the Presidency?

Michele Bachmann has never been an executive. Why do we think someone can jump from the House to the Presidency?

cptacek on December 16, 2011 at 12:20 AM

I don’t recall there being a Constitutional requirement for executive experience. I don’t care about executive experience. I care about whether the president understands and will adhere to the Constitution.

I guarantee you Ron Paul does and would, especially given that his entire tenure as a Congressman bears it out.

I’m equating popularity with votes. This is an election. The object of this game is to win. The candidate has to be electable. Ron Paul is not electable with his views on foreign policy and his other cooky behavior. The media would have a field day with many of those videos posted above if he got the GOP nomination and they considered him a threat. You can jump up and down and scream all you want that Paul is right and everyone else is wrong, that he’s not a racist because of his newsletters, that he is not antisemitic because of his views on Israel and Iran, that he’s not a Truther due to his close association with members of that crowd, and that he is not an isolationist or an angry old Bircher.

But if you cannot convince the voters of that then forget it. The man is not electable.

Concerning the opinions expressed and the facts relayed by Dr. Paul, which facts do you disagree with and which opinions do you find so outrageous? To an unbiased reader, it’s fairly obvious when he is relaying a fact and when he is making a reasonable, yet unproven, conjecture. However, the good old boy Republican elite (who, in fact, differ little from the good old boy Democratic elite) are terrified that Dr. Paul’s politically incorrect, but factually correct, discussions will make him unelectable in the general election. So, rather than having the fortitude to do the right thing, they take counsel of their fears and do what appears to be the “safe” thing. Unfortunately, as Franklin warned and as history demonstrates, they who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

thebigdogbarks on December 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I object to his suggestion to treat 13 year old black males differently than 13 year old white males when they commit crimes.

I object to his suggestion to treat 13 year old black males differently than 13 year old white males when they commit crimes.

cptacek on December 16, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I agree, as a former 13 year old and a current Black Male :o)

Although I never commited a crime at that age that was most due to upbringing…and I was the product of a single parent home…If i did step out of line I knew I’d rather STAY in jail than be sent home to my mom…LOL

1. It’s unusual for a newsletter to be written by the figurehead. My clients put out newsletters, they don’t write them. When getting advice about starting one, my most successful client told me specifically not to do the content myself.

Jimmy Liberty on December 15, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Did your successful client also tell you to allow any nutjob off the street in to write it for you and to never check the content to make sure you agree with what it said?

When you aren’t lying about something I didn’t say (and you’re doing it again), you sure do like to imagine that I’m jumping up and down screaming. Act like an adult. Be civil and be honest.

Dante on December 16, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Alright sport, listen up. If you think my, and other’s behavior here is uncivil, if you are really that much of a thin skinned pansy, that you cant take a little criticism and stand up for your candidate and what you believe in, then you have no place at HotAir, or any other conservative website. I have not even begun to be harsh with you. This is politics and anything (your candidate, his background (newsletters), his ideology, his cooky behavior, etc.) is fair game, just like every other GOP candidate. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. The other Ron Paul followers here got the memo. You apparently did not.

Second, you can cry dishonesty all you want (at this point it sounds like a racism accusation from a liberal). You never address anything I say about your candidate, you just go on whining that you never said that and/or I’m a liar. If that’s your game, your attempt at a rebuttal, or to get under my skin its never going to work. If I didnt get worked up about getting shot at in Iraq I’m sure not going to get worked up by some whining Ron Paul follower. So man up and stand by your candidate or go back to Campaign For Liberty.

Strange, because Paul’s votes in the House back up his talk. Mr. Pelosi’s votes and actions? Not so much.

Dante on December 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM

And it’s his talk, what he actually espouses that, IMHO is not a majority of the country or the voters in BOTH parties.

It’s been proven. It cannot be argued with. No one says that Ron Paul can’t have a seat at the table, but he does not have the muscle to get anything done. Again, this isn’t my opinion, this is proven.

If, by Mr Pelsoi, you mean Newt or Romney it’s immaterial: Newt has not been in the government directly in over 10 years; Romney has not been a Governor in over 5 years and neither have so much “insider clout” that they could sway legislation of a Democratic -Held majority for at least again 5 years or more.

(I could stretch this to include Perry, or Bachman or Santorium, et al but you see my point?)

Ron Paul has been in office for what? Over 20 years…which cause of Libertarianism has he championed over the finish line in ANY capacity?

He claims to want to retire next cycle, IIRC: if that’s true, why run for President?

I don’t recall there being a Constitutional requirement for executive experience. I don’t care about executive experience. I care about whether the president understands and will adhere to the Constitution.

I guarantee you Ron Paul does and would, especially given that his entire tenure as a Congressman bears it out.

Dante on December 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Oh, you got me. I explicitly said that the Constitution required that someone be an executive before becoming President, so Paul and Bachmann are ineligible.

/

Paul can’t even get people who write for him to toe the line. How is he going to keep an entire Federal government running?

Ron Paul did not endorse Cynthia McKinney. He “endorsed” all of the third party candidates who were being kept away from the people debates by the media and establishment’s stranglehold on the process.

I don’t know what’s difficult to understand. Even though Paul didn’t agree with some of the third party candidates’ views, he feels, rightly so, that they should be included in the debates. Are we not a free society? Should we only limit opinions and only be allowed to hold opinions that are pre-approved by the establishment media and the two dominant parties? Of course not.

Alright sport, listen up. If you think my, and other’s behavior here is uncivil, if you are really that much of a thin skinned pansy, that you cant take a little criticism and stand up for your candidate and what you believe in, then you have no place at HotAir, or any other conservative website. I have not even begun to be harsh with you. This is politics and anything (your candidate, his background (newsletters), his ideology, his cooky behavior, etc.) is fair game, just like every other GOP candidate. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. The other Ron Paul followers here got the memo. You apparently did not.

Second, you can cry dishonesty all you want (at this point it sounds like a racism accusation from a liberal). You never address anything I say about your candidate, you just go on whining that you never said that and/or I’m a liar. If that’s your game, your attempt at a rebuttal, or to get under my skin its never going to work. If I didnt get worked up about getting shot at in Iraq I’m sure not going to get worked up by some whining Ron Paul follower. So man up and stand by your candidate or go back to Campaign For Liberty.

Logboy on December 16, 2011 at 1:47 AM

After requesting you be civil, you underscore my point and start out with name calling. Have a good life.

I would vote for Ron Paul if the only other name on the ballot was Barack Hussain Obama. Even in doing so, I would not only have to hold my nose, but suppress my gag reflex and make certain that I had already “voided”. If Ron Paul is the best answer the GOP can come up with to the embarassment we have suffered for the past 3 years, then we are doomed.

Do I want respect? Certainly not from you. You’ve proven yourself to be a vile, contemptible human-being. When confronted with someone with an opposing viewpoint, you referred to me as “racist” and “un-American”. You are the epitome of all the negative remarks you just made of me. In short, you’re a disgraceful human being and I don’t want your respect because I would never have respect for a person like you. To sum it all up: GFY.

RobbBond on December 15, 2011 at 11:08 PM

When confronted online or IRL by un-American racists such as Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell supporters, Birchers, white supremacists, neo-confederates and Nazis, yes, I typically refer to them as un-American racists. Can’t help myself. Truth will out.

Must admit, though, I’m ashamed of the GOP for not calling out Ron Paul for what he is. They’re entirely too nice to the guy. Me, I’d be doing my level best to see if I could work that vicious little antisemitic crank up to a heart attack. I’d start off by telling Paul I was a Jewish secret agent, sent by the Mossad to discredit his movement before he disrupted our plans for world domination. That should work.

I don’t know what’s difficult to understand. Even though Paul didn’t agree with some of the third party candidates’ views, he feels, rightly so, that they should be included in the debates. Are we not a free society? Should we only limit opinions and only be allowed to hold opinions that are pre-approved by the establishment media and the two dominant parties? Of course not.
Dante on December 16, 2011 at 7:55 AM

There was a direct, jarring contradiction in that post. I just pointed it out.

ed, you are normally brilliant and you and i think as one. concerning Ron Paul, you could not be more wrong. if it were just ignorance, I could excuse it. you however seem (like much of the media) to go out of your way to be @ss. One simple question: what about Ron Pauls comments are not completely true? If we can’t point out the truth without being called a racist, then there is really very little hope for this country. Ron paul is the only candidate that has a chance to save this sinking ship. You elect any other candidate and this country simply CONTINUES down the tubes…maybe slower than if Obama were to win but down none the less. At the very least why don’t you stay out of it. You are hurting yourself.

I don’t understand what you mean, MelonCollie? I emphatically believe, and more than my belief, the Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. Including 13 year old children who commit crimes, black or white. Are you ok with how Ron Paul wants to treat black children?

Factcheck, Politifact, and AP – every single fact checking agency that has looked – have shown Bachmann was wrong on the UN report, and wrong on the ‘wipe Israel off map’ comment. That is more deserving of a HA post than baseless bashing of Ron Paul.

“As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”

Shortly after Ron Paul dominated GENERAL ELECTION polling in Iowa (NBC/Marist; tying Obama, while Romney and Newt lost big), PPP Polls just announced that Ron Paul is leading general election polling in New Mexico:

Now, I believe that in the future, Ron Paul should do better to make clear that sanctions are the best gifts the Iran government could ask for as they neutralize internal opposition by starving and threatening them back into the hands of their currently weak nationalist regime.

Bam! Man, I wish I had this when I was arguing with my brother the other month.

cptacek on December 16, 2011 at 3:13 PM

You cant argue with irrational fanatics and expect to get anywhere. They are essentially liberals in the way they think. They do not believe in absolute truth like we do, they believe in personal truth. Therefore if they personally do not believe something to be true (Paul’s racist newsletters) then it simply isn’t. And no amount of facts or proof can convince them otherwise. It’s not that it can’t be true that Paul is racist, it’s that they don’t want to believe it. Therefore its not true. Sort of like Iran and their nuclear ambitions. They don’t think it is true, therefore it isn’t. See how easy that is?

You neocons are sheep being led to be slaughtered. After reading through these posts of HA resident neocons smearing, libeling, name calling, and grasping at any attack they can conjure to destroy Paul, I almost don’t feel like the Republic is worth defending anymore. It just needs to all come crashing down to actually wake up the lunatic supposed conservatives. Seriously, who needs the left as enemies when you’ve got any army of foaming at the mouth chicken hawks taken their orders directly from the hacks like Bill O’Reilly and (insert neocon pundit here)?

So vote for Newt or Romney and watch one or the other get destroyed by Obama in the general election. It would seem that the American people need to suffer tremendously again in order to be awoken from their deep hypnotic sleep imposed upon them by the media.

A nice quote to expose your own belligerent arrogance. You believe in truth dictated to you by the god of fair and balanced (Fox News). Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Neocons like yourself play the left/right game like little pawns and election cycle after election cycle we get the same hack politicians who don’t believe a word that comes out of their own mouths. They just use the rhetoric that your mind has been conditioned to accept and you could care less about their totally abysmal inconsistent records as long as they say the right things you’re all for it.